Merrill Lynch pays billion dollar bonuses from bailout money

[Chris]

McCaskill Calls Merrill Lynch Execs "Idiots"

Claire McCaskill plans to put an end to excessive executive spending.

The Democratic Missouri Senator introduced a bill which would cap the salary of any private company accepting federal money.

Under the rules, no employee would be able to make more than the President of the United States.

McCaskill says, "they don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use tax payer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 to $4 billion dollars from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America. The sale is going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. You know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December."

 

[toomuchtime_]

McCaskill Calls Merrill Lynch Execs "Idiots"

Claire McCaskill plans to put an end to excessive executive spending.

The Democratic Missouri Senator introduced a bill which would cap the salary of any private company accepting federal money.

Under the rules, no employee would be able to make more than the President of the United States.

McCaskill says, "they don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use tax payer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 to $4 billion dollars from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America. The sale is going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. You know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December."

It is outrageous, but what's more outrageous is that the President and those in Congress are spending their time castigating these people instead of figuring out how to expand credit so that we can get out of this recession. The fact is that if they didn't pay these bonuses we'd still be in the same mess we're in, and if the President and Congress can figure out how to expand credit, these bonuses wouldn't hamper the recovery. How about if our political leaders spend time spanking the executives after they do their own jobs?

 

[Againsheila]

McCaskill Calls Merrill Lynch Execs "Idiots"

Claire McCaskill plans to put an end to excessive executive spending.

The Democratic Missouri Senator introduced a bill which would cap the salary of any private company accepting federal money.

Under the rules, no employee would be able to make more than the President of the United States.

McCaskill says, "they don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use tax payer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 to $4 billion dollars from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America. The sale is going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. You know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December."

It is outrageous, but what's more outrageous is that the President and those in Congress are spending their time castigating these people instead of figuring out how to expand credit so that we can get out of this recession. The fact is that if they didn't pay these bonuses we'd still be in the same mess we're in, and if the President and Congress can figure out how to expand credit, these bonuses wouldn't hamper the recovery. How about if our political leaders spend time spanking the executives after they do their own jobs?

I disagree, giving $billion bonuses while laying people off hampers our economy immensely, it lowers morale, which in turn lowers spending, which in turn hurts our economy. Meanwhile, the $billion CEOs who drove their companies into the ground are walking away with taxpayer money while we are losing our shirts. What our government should have done was give that money to the people who would spend it. Create small businesses, give more to the disabled and unemployed. Heck, think how many people could have started their own businesses with that money, actually HELPING our economy instead of draining it?

 

[Chris]

Againshelia, you are right.

It seems like Bush and Co. just raided the Treasury on their way out of town.

 

[toomuchtime_]

McCaskill Calls Merrill Lynch Execs "Idiots"

Claire McCaskill plans to put an end to excessive executive spending.

The Democratic Missouri Senator introduced a bill which would cap the salary of any private company accepting federal money.

Under the rules, no employee would be able to make more than the President of the United States.

McCaskill says, "they don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use tax payer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 to $4 billion dollars from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America. The sale is going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. You know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December."

It is outrageous, but what's more outrageous is that the President and those in Congress are spending their time castigating these people instead of figuring out how to expand credit so that we can get out of this recession. The fact is that if they didn't pay these bonuses we'd still be in the same mess we're in, and if the President and Congress can figure out how to expand credit, these bonuses wouldn't hamper the recovery. How about if our political leaders spend time spanking the executives after they do their own jobs?

I disagree, giving $billion bonuses while laying people off hampers our economy immensely, it lowers morale, which in turn lowers spending, which in turn hurts our economy. Meanwhile, the $billion CEOs who drove their companies into the ground are walking away with taxpayer money while we are losing our shirts. What our government should have done was give that money to the people who would spend it. Create small businesses, give more to the disabled and unemployed. Heck, think how many people could have started their own businesses with that money, actually HELPING our economy instead of draining it?

The recession is the result of shrinking bank reserves that prevent banks from lending businesses and consumers the money they need to revive the economy. It makes no sense to start new businesses while present businesses are failing. Estimates to get bank reserves up to where we need them run from $500 billion to $5 trillion dollars, so $18 billion dollars will not effect our recovery one way or another. If you're satisfied with listening to political leaders scold executives for not doing their jobs right while these same political leaders have no idea how to do their own jobs then perhaps you won't mind watching the economy continues to shrink because consumers can't get the credit they need to buy houses and cars and businesses can't get the credit they need to meet their payrolls and other business expenses. As for myself, I'm sick of listening to policticians try to deflect criticisms of their own failures by pretending to be indignant about issues they know don't effect the economy one way or the other.

 

[Avatar4321]

Looks they did exactly what anyone expected them to do with the money.

I just have to say, any of you who expect otherwise are complete and utter morons.

 

[Againsheila]

It is outrageous, but what's more outrageous is that the President and those in Congress are spending their time castigating these people instead of figuring out how to expand credit so that we can get out of this recession. The fact is that if they didn't pay these bonuses we'd still be in the same mess we're in, and if the President and Congress can figure out how to expand credit, these bonuses wouldn't hamper the recovery. How about if our political leaders spend time spanking the executives after they do their own jobs?

I disagree, giving $billion bonuses while laying people off hampers our economy immensely, it lowers morale, which in turn lowers spending, which in turn hurts our economy. Meanwhile, the $billion CEOs who drove their companies into the ground are walking away with taxpayer money while we are losing our shirts. What our government should have done was give that money to the people who would spend it. Create small businesses, give more to the disabled and unemployed. Heck, think how many people could have started their own businesses with that money, actually HELPING our economy instead of draining it?

The recession is the result of shrinking bank reserves that prevent banks from lending businesses and consumers the money they need to revive the economy. It makes no sense to start new businesses while present businesses are failing. Estimates to get bank reserves up to where we need them run from $500 billion to $5 trillion dollars, so $18 billion dollars will not effect our recovery one way or another. If you're satisfied with listening to political leaders scold executives for not doing their jobs right while these same political leaders have no idea how to do their own jobs then perhaps you won't mind watching the economy continues to shrink because consumers can't get the credit they need to buy houses and cars and businesses can't get the credit they need to meet their payrolls and other business expenses. As for myself, I'm sick of listening to policticians try to deflect criticisms of their own failures by pretending to be indignant about issues they know don't effect the economy one way or the other.

The recession(depression) is a result of importing and exporting American jobs and companies. Increasing the income gap to historical rates and decreasing the middle class and middle class pay. Ford learned the lesson many years ago when he created the first minimum wage in this country that allowed his own workers to purchase his cars, skyrocketing his profits.

The banks didn't save us from the last depression and they aren't gonna save us from this one.

 

[Againsheila]

Looks they did exactly what anyone expected them to do with the money.

I just have to say, any of you who expect otherwise are complete and utter morons.

I said it before and I'll say it again, this was just a way for Bush and his friends to make a last ditch effort to steal from the treasury. Lucky Bush, he has his ranch in Paraguay when our country breaks apart. Wonder where Obama will run to?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I disagree, giving $billion bonuses while laying people off hampers our economy immensely, it lowers morale, which in turn lowers spending, which in turn hurts our economy. Meanwhile, the $billion CEOs who drove their companies into the ground are walking away with taxpayer money while we are losing our shirts. What our government should have done was give that money to the people who would spend it. Create small businesses, give more to the disabled and unemployed. Heck, think how many people could have started their own businesses with that money, actually HELPING our economy instead of draining it?

The recession is the result of shrinking bank reserves that prevent banks from lending businesses and consumers the money they need to revive the economy. It makes no sense to start new businesses while present businesses are failing. Estimates to get bank reserves up to where we need them run from $500 billion to $5 trillion dollars, so $18 billion dollars will not effect our recovery one way or another. If you're satisfied with listening to political leaders scold executives for not doing their jobs right while these same political leaders have no idea how to do their own jobs then perhaps you won't mind watching the economy continues to shrink because consumers can't get the credit they need to buy houses and cars and businesses can't get the credit they need to meet their payrolls and other business expenses. As for myself, I'm sick of listening to politicians try to deflect criticisms of their own failures by pretending to be indignant about issues they know don't effect the economy one way or the other.

The recession(depression) is a result of importing and exporting American jobs and companies. Increasing the income gap to historical rates and decreasing the middle class and middle class pay. Ford learned the lesson many years ago when he created the first minimum wage in this country that allowed his own workers to purchase his cars, skyrocketing his profits.

The banks didn't save us from the last depression and they aren't gonna save us from this one.

We are in a recession because neither consumers not businesses can get the credit they need to spend us out of it. Class warfare rants are useful only to politicians who either don't understand what has to be done to fix the credit crunch or lack the courage to do it.

 

[Againsheila]

The recession is the result of shrinking bank reserves that prevent banks from lending businesses and consumers the money they need to revive the economy. It makes no sense to start new businesses while present businesses are failing. Estimates to get bank reserves up to where we need them run from $500 billion to $5 trillion dollars, so $18 billion dollars will not effect our recovery one way or another. If you're satisfied with listening to political leaders scold executives for not doing their jobs right while these same political leaders have no idea how to do their own jobs then perhaps you won't mind watching the economy continues to shrink because consumers can't get the credit they need to buy houses and cars and businesses can't get the credit they need to meet their payrolls and other business expenses. As for myself, I'm sick of listening to politicians try to deflect criticisms of their own failures by pretending to be indignant about issues they know don't effect the economy one way or the other.

The recession(depression) is a result of importing and exporting American jobs and companies. Increasing the income gap to historical rates and decreasing the middle class and middle class pay. Ford learned the lesson many years ago when he created the first minimum wage in this country that allowed his own workers to purchase his cars, skyrocketing his profits.

The banks didn't save us from the last depression and they aren't gonna save us from this one.

We are in a recession because neither consumers not businesses can get the credit they need to spend us out of it. Class warfare rants are useful only to politicians who either don't understand what has to be done to fix the credit crunch or lack the courage to do it.

We already owe more money than we can ever repay. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying this bill. We are so deep in debt it's stupid to put us in even more debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, it's just not possible.

It wasn't Reagan that caused the fall of the Soviet Union, it was their own debt. We now face that debt, do you honestly think we will survive by creating even more debt?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The recession(depression) is a result of importing and exporting American jobs and companies. Increasing the income gap to historical rates and decreasing the middle class and middle class pay. Ford learned the lesson many years ago when he created the first minimum wage in this country that allowed his own workers to purchase his cars, skyrocketing his profits.

The banks didn't save us from the last depression and they aren't gonna save us from this one.

We are in a recession because neither consumers not businesses can get the credit they need to spend us out of it. Class warfare rants are useful only to politicians who either don't understand what has to be done to fix the credit crunch or lack the courage to do it.

We already owe more money than we can ever repay. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying this bill. We are so deep in debt it's stupid to put us in even more debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, it's just not possible.

It wasn't Reagan that caused the fall of the Soviet Union, it was their own debt. We now face that debt, do you honestly think we will survive by creating even more debt?

Absolutely, all of our prosperity for the last twenty years was based on debt. The stagnant economy of the 1970's was overcome by deregulation that allowed creative new ways to finance growth. None of the prosperity of the 1990's would have been possible without all that corporate and consumer debt.

What matters is not the size of the debt but the debt to GDP ratio. Just as a person who earns more can afford to carry a larger mortgage a larger economy can afford to carry more debt than a smaller economy. That's why countries borrow to finance new growth when the economy is slow, because the new growth will better allow them to carry the new debt. Only when the debt to gdp ratio increases do we have to begin to worry. In our present situation, if we borrow nothing and the economy continues to decline that ratio will increase and servicing our existing debt will become an increasing problem, but if new debt produces new growth servicing the debt will become less of a burden for us. All developed economies carry relatively large public debts and the US debt is still moderate when compared to that of Canada or the European economies.

 

[Againsheila]

We are in a recession because neither consumers not businesses can get the credit they need to spend us out of it. Class warfare rants are useful only to politicians who either don't understand what has to be done to fix the credit crunch or lack the courage to do it.

We already owe more money than we can ever repay. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying this bill. We are so deep in debt it's stupid to put us in even more debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, it's just not possible.

It wasn't Reagan that caused the fall of the Soviet Union, it was their own debt. We now face that debt, do you honestly think we will survive by creating even more debt?

Absolutely, all of our prosperity for the last twenty years was based on debt. The stagnant economy of the 1970's was overcome by deregulation that allowed creative new ways to finance growth. None of the prosperity of the 1990's would have been possible without all that corporate and consumer debt.

What matters is not the size of the debt but the debt to GDP ratio. Just as a person who earns more can afford to carry a larger mortgage a larger economy can afford to carry more debt than a smaller economy. That's why countries borrow to finance new growth when the economy is slow, because the new growth will better allow them to carry the new debt. Only when the debt to gdp ratio increases do we have to begin to worry. In our present situation, if we borrow nothing and the economy continues to decline that ratio will increase and servicing our existing debt will become an increasing problem, but if new debt produces new growth servicing the debt will become less of a burden for us. All developed economies carry relatively large public debts and the US debt is still moderate when compared to that of Canada or the European economies.

Changes is corporate law in the 1970's is what has led to our current depression. Outsourcing our jobs and insourcing, etc., Borrowing against pension plans...etc. Sure, it got us out of a small recession in the 70's, but it started the creation of our current depression. We don't have anything left to borrow. We are printing money as if it were toilet paper and that's about all it's going to be worth when they are through.

we are no longer backed by the gold standard. All we need is one oil nation to decide to go with the Euro and America is done for.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We already owe more money than we can ever repay. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying this bill. We are so deep in debt it's stupid to put us in even more debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, it's just not possible.

It wasn't Reagan that caused the fall of the Soviet Union, it was their own debt. We now face that debt, do you honestly think we will survive by creating even more debt?

Absolutely, all of our prosperity for the last twenty years was based on debt. The stagnant economy of the 1970's was overcome by deregulation that allowed creative new ways to finance growth. None of the prosperity of the 1990's would have been possible without all that corporate and consumer debt.

What matters is not the size of the debt but the debt to GDP ratio. Just as a person who earns more can afford to carry a larger mortgage a larger economy can afford to carry more debt than a smaller economy. That's why countries borrow to finance new growth when the economy is slow, because the new growth will better allow them to carry the new debt. Only when the debt to gdp ratio increases do we have to begin to worry. In our present situation, if we borrow nothing and the economy continues to decline that ratio will increase and servicing our existing debt will become an increasing problem, but if new debt produces new growth servicing the debt will become less of a burden for us. All developed economies carry relatively large public debts and the US debt is still moderate when compared to that of Canada or the European economies.

Changes is corporate law in the 1970's is what has led to our current depression. Outsourcing our jobs and insourcing, etc., Borrowing against pension plans...etc. Sure, it got us out of a small recession in the 70's, but it started the creation of our current depression. We don't have anything left to borrow. We are printing money as if it were toilet paper and that's about all it's going to be worth when they are through.

we are no longer backed by the gold standard. All we need is one oil nation to decide to go with the Euro and America is done for.

Our problem is difficult and will be costly to solve, but it doesn't go that deep. Low interest rates from the Fed led to a real estate bubble, and the deregulations of financial markets passed in 1999 and 2000 along with the failure of bond rating companies to accurately rate the mortgage backed derivatives led to trillions of dollars of bank reserves all over the world being tied up in derivatives that have little or no market value at this time. Since these derivatives, essentially bonds, were being used as legal reserves against outstanding loans, when they lost their value banks had to bolster their reserves with cash they otherwise would have been able to lend to consumers and businesses.

What the government is going to have to do, through one mechanism or another, is to buy these derivatives from the financial institutions that are holding them so that they can begin lending money again. Since 90% of mortgage holders are making their payments on time, the underlying value of the derivatives is only about 10% less than when they were issued, but since by law banks must value their reserves by market price and since there is no market for these derivatives at present as long as the banks are holding them, they will not be able to lend consumers and businesses the money they need.

We got out of the Saving and Loan crisis by buying up bad investments in the same way, but this time we are probably talking about the government spending at least a few trillion dollars, most of which it will eventually get back, to buy these derivatives, and no one in Washington has the political cajones to tell the American people this is what we are going to have to do. If we don't do this and soon, this recession will drag on for years. In Japan, when they had a similar financial crisis because of a real estate bubble, it took them a decade to come out of their recession. Let's hope the people in Washington grow a pair so we won't have to go through what the Japanese did.

 

[Chris]

toomuchtime.....

Very nice analysis.

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime.....

Very nice analysis.

Thank you.

 

[StaleBO]

Bonuses my ass how about some god dam jail time for the bandits.

 

[auditor0007]

McCaskill Calls Merrill Lynch Execs "Idiots"

Claire McCaskill plans to put an end to excessive executive spending.

The Democratic Missouri Senator introduced a bill which would cap the salary of any private company accepting federal money.

Under the rules, no employee would be able to make more than the President of the United States.

McCaskill says, "they don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use tax payer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 to $4 billion dollars from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America. The sale is going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. You know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December."

This is the problem when government becomes too involved in business. We end up going from one extreme to another. Capping a CEO salary to the President's is absurd. A good CEO is worth much more than what the President makes. And yes, the President is extremely underpaid. At the same time, most President's make up for it once they leave office, or at least they have that opportunity. Just look at Clinton.

Of course, we are talking about Claire McCaskill who is loonier than a DoDo Bird. The dumb thing is that I might actually agree with her if the pay was limited to a reasonable amount.

 

[Chris]

We should not have given these banks money.

We should have set up an organization to buy up and renegotiate the bad mortgages like they did with the S and L's in the 1980's.

 

[auditor0007]

We already owe more money than we can ever repay. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying this bill. We are so deep in debt it's stupid to put us in even more debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt, it's just not possible.

It wasn't Reagan that caused the fall of the Soviet Union, it was their own debt. We now face that debt, do you honestly think we will survive by creating even more debt?

Absolutely, all of our prosperity for the last twenty years was based on debt. The stagnant economy of the 1970's was overcome by deregulation that allowed creative new ways to finance growth. None of the prosperity of the 1990's would have been possible without all that corporate and consumer debt.

What matters is not the size of the debt but the debt to GDP ratio. Just as a person who earns more can afford to carry a larger mortgage a larger economy can afford to carry more debt than a smaller economy. That's why countries borrow to finance new growth when the economy is slow, because the new growth will better allow them to carry the new debt. Only when the debt to gdp ratio increases do we have to begin to worry. In our present situation, if we borrow nothing and the economy continues to decline that ratio will increase and servicing our existing debt will become an increasing problem, but if new debt produces new growth servicing the debt will become less of a burden for us. All developed economies carry relatively large public debts and the US debt is still moderate when compared to that of Canada or the European economies.

Changes is corporate law in the 1970's is what has led to our current depression. Outsourcing our jobs and insourcing, etc., Borrowing against pension plans...etc. Sure, it got us out of a small recession in the 70's, but it started the creation of our current depression. We don't have anything left to borrow. We are printing money as if it were toilet paper and that's about all it's going to be worth when they are through.

we are no longer backed by the gold standard. All we need is one oil nation to decide to go with the Euro and America is done for.

That was the big scare a year ago. However, now the Euro is falling steadily against the dollar, so that wouldn't necessarily doom us. It's also not likely to happen as the the Euro is facing more long term trouble than the dollar, at least at the moment.